Tercel

I prefer to call passive disbelief agnosticism and save atheism for what others would call strong atheism. But, if you like, I'm happy to allow either type under the term "atheism".

However, babies are in a state of never having considered the issue which would seem to me to be different from active and passive disbelief. Both these positions would seem to require that the person has considered their beliefs and this is the position they have come to. It is certainly possible to regard the situation of "never having considered it" as passive disbelief, but that would seem to me to only obfuscate things as this type of "passive disbelief" differs significantly from those who after considering the issue would rate themselves as passive disbelievers.

Not Prince Hamlet

Tercel,

I think we agree in concept, just not in words. I concur that babies almost certainly have never considered the existence of a deity one way or another, but I would classify this as "passive disbelief", that is, they are not believing but this disbelief does come from acting refusing to believe something, but only from simply not having an opinion on the subject to the contrary.

For instance, if you told me that there was a guy standing behind me with a knife, and I chose not to listen to you (stupid me), then I am actively disbelieving you. However, if you hadn't told me in the first place, I am passively disbelieving it, that is, not believing it through no conscious effort.

I think we're splitting hairs here, though, and that we're essentially in agreement.

Jeff

joedad

Sounds like you're saying that all kids are natural atheists. Why not just call it "uninformed disbelief," as opposed to an adult's "informed disbelief?" In either case, both qualify as atheism.

And would not such an observation dramatically increase the total number of actual "atheists" worldwide?

joe

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: joedad ]</p>

Jeremy Pallant

Yet you consider babies to be in a state of active belief with respect to religion. After all, you described religious belief as the default.

joedad

Is it not apparent that widespread theism owes simply to the fact that such beliefs and pseudo knowledge evolved when human lifetimes were a third or a fourth of what they are today?

Add to this the knowledge that elites in more historically advanced ancient civilizations and cultures were considered gods themselves, and therefore along with their priests, more likely to outlive and outbreed their "subjects" on average.

In effect, theism gets selected for in a very big way, and we inherit that both genetically and culturally.

The average historical human simply wasn't capable of accumulating and passing on knowledge to the degree we today all but take for granted. By comparison, humans today get to live three or four lifetimes compared to their ancestors, and do it in a culture relatively safe, and brimming with knowledge.

I think that this bodes very poorly for theism and all supernaturalism in the long term.

joe